' E 
74-5 



jffrff'.?jT^.'!i<"!ii. 




Class X_G^i_i_ 
Book T4B 



I 



CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT 



PRINCIPLES AGAINST POLICY. 



SPEECH 



OF 



[on. John L. Thomas, jr., of Maryland, 



Oif 



RECONSTKUCTION; 



DELIVERED 



IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, APRIL 21, 1866. 







% 




■^^X'. WASHINGTON: 
PRINTED A^'THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 

f 1866. 



tN EXCHANtE 







RECONSTRUCTION. 



The Iloase, as in Committee of tho Whole on the 
state of tho Union, having under consideration the 
President's annual message — 

m. J. L. THOMAS said: 

Mr. Speaker: The great question of recon- 
struction and the collateral issues properly be- 
longing to it have been agitating this country 
in some form or another since the first session 
of the Thirty-Eighth Congress. 

The rebellion which has been so gloriously 
crushed out has devolved upon us the solemn 
duty of dealing with its results in such a man- 
ner as that a permanent peace shall be secured 
and a lasting adjustment of all the irritating 
causes that produced it, shall be forever put at 
rest. I, for one, have made up my mind what 
course I shall pursue, and "with malice to- 
ward none, with charity for all, with determi- 
nation to do the right as God giveth me to see 
the right" — to advocate and support such prin- 
ciples as will reconstruct the States lately in 
rebellion on a sure and loyal foundation,' and 
that treason will never again lift its bloody 
hand to strike down the bulwarks of the Con- 
stitution. 

Differences have arisen among us as to 
how this can best be done. Loyal, patriotic, 
honest men have spoken on the subject, and 
whii?, some of them differ as to the details, 
and others as to mere abstract questions and 
theoretic views of "State suicide," we all 
agree on one point, and that is, that no rebel- 
lious State shall be represented on this floor 
until her people show such unmistakable proofs 
of repentance and loyalty for the future as will 



warrant us in believing that "the Republic 
can receive no detriment" at the hands of its 
former assailants. 

The committee on reconstruction, to whom 
this House, by the unanimous vote of the ma- 
jority, intrusted the investigation of the con- 
dition of the rebel States, have not as yet 
reported that any of them are in a condition 
to be represented here, with the exception of 
the State of Tennessee. That committee, com- 
posed as it is of some of the best and most 
patriotic members of this body, is entitled to our 
highest consideration and respect, and would 
not, I am sure abuse the trust that has been 
placed in their hands. The fact that they have 
not yet reported that any of these States, except 
the State of Tennessee, are in a condition to 
be represented is a strong argument to my 
mind why we should not be precipitate in our 
action. And however much that committee 
may have been abused by the whole copper- 
head press of the country, and arraigned by 
the President as an "irresponsible directory," 
I can see nothing cither in the material of 
which it is formed or the duties which have 
been assigned them by the Senate and the 
House that detracts either from the conclusions 
at which they arrive or the right they have in 
exercising the powers allotted to them. Act- 
ing on behalf of the Senate and the House, 
they act as any other committee, clothed with 
such powers only as the Senate and the House 
see fit to give them. Their conclusions, and 
the facts upon which their judgment is based, 
must be submitted to the Congress for its rati 



4 



fication or rejection. How it can be looked 
upon or called "irresponsible," when it must 
render an account to the country for its con- 
duct, is hard for me to comprehend. That it 
can be likened to a "directory," when it has 
no power of its own, and when its resolutions 
are feeble and lifeless except they receive the 
assent of Congress, is still more difficult for me 
to understand. 

Thejoint resolution empowering that commit- 
tee to act was passed on the 4th day of Decem- 
ber last, and received the support and the vote 
of some of the very men whom we find to-day 
denouncing it as a usurpation. When it went 
out to the world no one saw in it anything but 
a legitimate exercise of the powers of Con- 
gress, and the President himself, so far as I 
am aware, did not say a word in opposition 
to it. 

The Constitution says that "each House 
shall be the judge of the election, qualification, 
and returns of its own members. ' ' It nowhere 
says that each House shall separately, for itself, 
do this, nor that it shall not be done by the 
concurrent action of each House. Each House 
can act separately for itself, and in all ques- 
tions touching the elections, &c., of the mem- 
bers of each House, the practice heretofore 
in ordinary cases has been for each House to 
act without the concurrence of the other. 

But the question involved in the admission 
of the Senators and Representatives of the 
lately rebellious States was and is not a mere 
question of qualification, election, and return 
of its members, but goes to the fundamental 
principles of the status and organization of the 
people and the State governments of the States 
asking fer the admission of their Senators and 
Representatives. 

The Constitution says that "each House 
may determine the rules of ifes own proceed- 
ings." (Article one, section five.) Does this 
prevent the Congress from making joint rules, 
to be binding on both? On the cohtrary, has 
it not been the practice for each House, by 
concurrent action, to make joint rules, not only 
to facilitate public business, but to make their 
action uniform and harmonious ? And if there 
ever was a case presented where neither House 
should act without the concurrence of the other 
it is in the mode and manner of dealing with 



the representation from these States. If eac 

House should act for itself we might have th 

strange anomaly of the people being repr( 

sented in one branch and the States unrepr( 

sented in another, or vice versa. 

Again, the Constitution says that — 

"Tho House of Representatives shall be compose 
of members chosen every second year by the people c 
the several States, and the electors in each State sha 
have tho qualifications requisite for the electors c 
the most numerous branch. of the State Legisli 
ture." — Art. 1, Sec. 2. 

Will any one tell me that the House has nc 
the power to inquire and ascertain whether 
man sent here to represent the people was i 
fact elected by the electors having the qualii 
cations requisite for the most numerous branc 
of the State Legislatures ? Suppose a ma 
should present himself with his credentlah 
bearing the broad seal of his State, certifyin 
that he was duly elected, and it should tur 
out that he was not elected by the qualifie 
electors of the most numerous branch of tli 
State Legislature, but by a portion of the peC 
pie not qualified as such an elector — a negr 
population, for example — will any one affiri 
that we would not have the power to ascertai 
who and what these electors were ; and if the 
were not what the Constitution says they sha 
be, to refuse to admit them? And the sam 
may be said as to the power of the Senate i 
relation to the States. 

And yet when Congress passes a joint res( 
lution appointing a joint committee whos 
duty is to inquire into the condition of eleve 
States, the majority of whose people have fc 
the past four years been in armed and wicke 
rebellion against the Government, and to repo: 
whether any of these States are entitled to t 
represented because of their treason, it 
denounced as a crime, and held up to the worl 
as a monstrous outrage and a vile usurpatioi 

Sir, if it be an outrage for me to refuse t 
admit to my house a man coming from a loca 
ity infected with some loathsome, contagioi 
disease until I am satisfied I can do it withoi 
running any risks or hazards of my life, c 
to the life of the inmates of my house, then 
is monstrous in me to refuse men admissio 
here, coming from disloyal constituenciei 
until I am satisfied their admission will n( 
endanger the life of the Republic. This ut 
seemly haste on the part of these States < 



jm I > <— » "4 »^ 



come back into Congress on their terms is 
only equalled by their preciiaitate action in 
leaving these Halls in 18G1 to join in breaking 
up by force of arms what they would tear down 
to-morrow by political trickery if you but give 
them the opportunity and the power. 

While I am as desirous as any man that the 
States unrepresented should have their dele- 
gates participate with us in our deliberations, 
I am at the same time sensible of a duty that 
I owe to my country and to such of the loyal 
masses of the South as stood true to the Union 
in its hour of peril, that is paramount to any 
courtesy that I might be willing to extend to 
them. 

Sir, the smoke of the great revolution 
througli which we have just emerged hag not 
yet sulliciently passed away to allow us to dis- 
cern clearly the prosi^ects or hopes of the 
future. For myself, as I never entertained a 
doubt during the long and dreary night that 
for nearly five years hung like a death-pall over 
our country, that the rebellion would be finally 
crushed out, and traitors made to feel the 
enormity of their guilt, so to-day, if I feel a 
sad disappointment that they have not met 
that doom that their treason entitled them to 
receive, I have an abiding confidence in the 
devotion and patriotism of the loyal masses of 
the people that they will never allow these 
rebels, who have forfeited everything by their 
rebellion, to dictate the terms upon which they 
shall resume their relationship to the Govern- 
ment. They are either to be consulted as to 
what conditions will .best please them, or we 
are to make known to them upon what terms 
we please to receive them. We are eitlier to 
consent that such men as they select shall be 
our peers in this House, or we are to tell them 
what character of peers they shall send here. 
We are either to exact no guarantees for future 
security, or we are to impose such guarantees 
as Congress in its wisdom may deem best for 
the pul)llc good, 

I hold that treason is the same, whether it 
be committed by an aggregate of individuals, 
or by but one individual. It is levying war 
against the United States ; giving aid and com- 
fort to its enemies. When an aggregate of 
individuals commit treason, they are as liable 
to pay its penalty as any single individual would 



be. If any person in a State commits treason, 
and you have the power to prescribe the con- 
ditions upon which he shall be pardoned, (which 
the President has done, both by his amnesty 
proclamation and the thousands of pardons 
he has granted,) then you have the power as a 
Congress to say to these same men, " Before you 
shall be allowed to exercise your functions as 
States, you shall first comply, with certain con- 
ditions, which we deem to be necessary before 
we can allow you to resume all your rightis as 
members of a State." 

The Constitution says the United States shall 
guaranty to each State a republican form of 
government. At the end of the rebellion we 
found that the insurgents had erected insur- 
rectionary governments that were in the hands 
of traitors, and that were not only not repub- 
lican, but that were usurpations and tyrannies. 
We found that the rebels in arms had seized 
hold of the political machinery of the States, 
and had not only carried them into rebellion, 
but had linked their fortunes to a pretended 
and revolutionary confederacy, which they 
acknowledged, and to which they had all sworn 
allegiance. 

We found that men who were true in their 
loyalty to this Govemiment were hunted down 
like dogs and treated like beasts ; their property 
confiscated, their homesteads desolated, their 
wives and children forced away from them be- 
cause of their loyalty. We found all this, and 
more which I shall not stop to recount, and 
which history will blush to record. 

This being the case, the question is, not 
whether the States that went into rebellion 
were ever out of the Union, not whether by 
their ordinances of secession they succeeded in 
doing what their ordinances proclaimed to the 
world, but whether the State governments we 
found in existence at the time the combined 
armies of the confederacy surrendered to Grant 
were the legitimate State governments recog- 
nized by the Con.stitution, and republican in 
form, or were usurpations, presided over by 
traitors to their country. 

It cannot be contended for a moment that 
the State governments found in existence in 
April, 1865, were the same State governments 
that existed prior to 1861. Not only is thia not 
so, ia relation to the functionaries representing 



6 



these State governments, such as Governors, 
judges, and members of the Legislature, but in 
many, if not all of them, their State constitu- 
tions had been changed in order to meet the 
new obligations which they had contracted in 
attaching themselves to the rebel usurpation. 
Were these State governments legal or illegal ; 
were they constitutional or unconstitutional ; 
were they republican or anti-republican? If 
they are legal, constitutional, and republican, 
then were their ordinances of secession legal, 
constitutional, and republican? If, on the 
other hand, their ordinances of secession are 
and were void, then their State governments 
made under their ordinances of secession are 
void. The one follows as the necessary con- 
sequence of the other. This being the case, 
their secession ordinances being void, and all 
their State governments in existence during 
the rebellion being in like manner void and 
usurpations, we are forced to come to one of 
two conclusions, either that the State gov- 
ernments in existence in 1861 and prior to the 
rebellion, are in existence now, unchanged, 
with all of their rights and immunities, in as 
full and ample a manner as they possessed them 
at that time, or the rebel usurpations which 
continued in these States for four years, and 
which have been overthrown by force of arms, 
are still in existence, or the new State gov- 
ernments, created by provisional governors 
appointed by the President, are in existence. 

If the first be the case — that is, if these State 
Governments have had an existence all through 
the rebellion just as though no rebellion had 
happened — then there is no obligation, no con- 
dition that either Congress or the Executive, 
eitlier as a war measure or in any other respect, 
can impose upon these States. Then neither 
Congress nor the Executive have any right to 
say, you shall first adopt the amendment to 
abolish slavery, and repudiate the doctrine of 
secession, and as a condition-precedent before 
their admission to representation in Congress. 
Then neither the President nor Congress has 
any right to say that before any of their Rep- 
resentatives shall be admitted here they shall 
first be loyal, and then take an oath of loyalty. 

If this be true, then neither Mr. Lincoln nor 
Mr. Johnson had any right to appoint provis- 
ional governors of States whose machinery of 



government was already in existence, and 
which the rebellion did not and could nol 
destroy. Then all the acts done by these pro- 
visional governors are illegal and void, and 
without warrant of law, either under the Con- 
stitution or the laws of nations. 

It appears to me, sir, that a strange confu' 
sion of ideas has taken place in the discussior 
of this question. A State is confounded wit! 
the government of the State. A State cannoi 
go out of the Union unless by successful revo- 
lution it succeeds in a separate, independen' 
nationality, acknowledged as such by the world 
Secession ordinances cannot carry a State oui 
of the Union, because if they could, every State 
that attempted to secede would to-day be ou 
of the Union. But the government of a Statt 
can become usurped and so utterly destroyec 
as to require not only remodeling but an entirt 
new frame work. 

Suppose, sir, for illustration, that the rebels 
in my own State had succeeded in 1861 in pasS' 
ing an ordinance of secession and forcing th( 
loyal Governor of Maryland either to leave th( 
State or to vacate the functions of his office 
suppose, in place of the State government ther 
in existence, they had elected another Governor 
Legislature, and judiciary — all of them sworr 
to support the upstart and usurping confed 
eracy; suppose this State government so or 
ganized had waged war against the Unitec 
States for four years, and at the end of tha' 
time was compelled by force of arms to submi 
to the power against whom it had rebelled, ii 
what condition would my State have been, anc 
what would have been the duty and the obliga 
tions of this Government to the loyal Unior 
men of Maryland who refused to take part ii 
the usurpation, and who never yielded a vol 
untary support to the confederacy? 

To be sure the boundaries of the State woulc 
have remained the same as they do now. Its 
geography would not have been changed, anc 
possibly its name would have been allowed tc 
exist. But suppose one portion of the people 
acting under the constitution of the State as i' 
existed prior to 1861, had elected Representa 
tives and Senators, and suppose another portior 
of the people had elected Senators and Repre 
sentatives in accordance with the laws made 
during the four years it was in rebellion, anc 



that still another portion had elected Senators 
and Representatives in uccordance with a con- 
stitution and laws made and enacted under and 
by virtue of a convention called into being by 
a provisional governor appointed by the Pres- 
ident as Commander-in-Chief of the Army, 
which State government would you recognize, 
and which set of Representatives would you 
admit, and where would the power reside as to 
which was the State government and who its 
Representatives? If you sayyou would recog- 
nize the State governments in existance prior 
to 18G1, then how can you reconcile the fact 
that the State governments organized in all of 
the lately rebellious States are to-day the creat- 
ures and creations of the conjoint action of the 
President of the United States by the appoint- 
ment of provisional governors, on the one part, 
and the people of these States, acting by per- 
mission of the provisional governors, on the 
other. 

If it be said that this cannot.be done, that 
the State governments as they existed in 1860 
were usurped, then I want to know if you 
intend to acknowledge the rebel usurpations 
carried on for over four years in spite of the 
Constitution, and in spite of the armies and the 
Navy of the UnitedStates which finally ground 
tliem to powder. If you will not, as you can- 
not and dare not, acknowledge the rebel usur- 
pations, then the question is presented, are 
the State governments as at present organized 
in the lately rebellious States, so organized on 
such principles of justice and loyalty as to war- 
rant the people of the United States to reinvest 
them with all the rights and privileges of States 
in as full and ample a manner as they were 
possessed by them prior to the time when they 
went into rebellion? 

In the discussion of this question, Mr. Speaker, 
I do not intend to allow myself to be drawn 
into a consideration of abstract questions, which 
when fully exhausted and finally answered bring 
us no nearer to the point we are trying to reach 
than when we started. 

For this reason I do not intend to assume, as 
many liave who have preceded me, either the 
right of a State to secede, or whether the rebel 
States did secede, or whether they have ever 
been out of the Union, or whether they are Ter- 



ritories. It is enough for me to know that they 
have' been in rebellion ; that during that rebel- 
lion their State governments ceased to have 
any relations (except as enemies) with the peo- 
ple of the United States ; that certain conse- 
quences followed from their rebellion — one the 
subversion or overthrow of their State govern- 
ments, the other a suspension of the represen- 
tation in Congress. 

• I claim, sir, that it is for Congress to decide 
not only whether these State governments 
having been once subverted, have been again 
reconstructed, but to examine and see how 
they have been reconstructed, and whether they 
have been so reconstructed as to entitle them 
to representation here. In the language of the 
lamented Lincoln — 

"Let us all join in doing the acts necessary to re- 
storing the proper practical relations between these 
States and the Union, and each forever after inno- 
cently indulge hi.s own opinion whether, in doingth* 
acts, he brought the States from without into the 
Union, or only gave them proper assistance, they 
never having been out of it." 

That we are all desirous of doing this I am 
satisfied. That it ought to be done quickly, 
but with a view to secure future peace and 
security, both to th'em and to us, I am per- 
suaded. So far as the constitutional power of 
Congress over this whole matter is concerned, 
I am convinced it is ample and exclusive. 

The President, as Commander-in-Chief of 
the Army and the Navy, has the power to erect 
military provisional governments as temporary 
expedients for peace and quiet. But these pro- 
visional governments only proved two things: 
first, that the old State governments had been 
subverted or destroyed ; and second, that having 
been destroyed , some expedient must be resorted 
to to make a new one. The power of Congress 
commenced where that of the President ceased. 
His power ceased when he withdrew his pro- 
visional governors. The power of Congress 
commenced when culled upon to recognize the 
Senators and Representatives of the newly- 
reconstructed State governments. 

That this power is in Congress, and exclu- 
sively in Congress, I shall read a short passage 
from the decision of the Supreme Court of the 
United States in the case of Luther vs. Borden, 
reported in 7 Howard's Supreme Court Reports, 
at page 10. Say the court : 

" Thefourth section of the fourth article of the Con- 



8 



stitiition of the United States provides that Congress 
shall guaranty to every State in the Union a repub- 
lican form of government." * * * * 

" Under this article of the Constitution it rests with 
Congress to decide what government is the established 
one in a State. For as the United States guaranty 
to every State a republican government, Congress 
must necessarily decide what government is estab- 
lished in a State before it can determine whether it 
is republican or not. 

" And when the Senators and Representatives of 
a State are admitted" — 

I desire gentlemen to pay their particular 
attention to this— • 

" into the councils of the Union, the authority of the 
government under which they are appointed, as w611 
as its republican character, is recognized by the proper 
constitutional authority." 

What stronger authority could you have, as 
to the meaning of the guarantee clause and 
of the duties and powers of Congress under it 
than this? And what better vindication could 
we desire, as to our refusal to admit these Sen- 
ators and Representatives from the rebel States 
until their condition has been inquired into and 
the form of government they have made has 
been ascertained, than the announcement made 
in this case, that when the Senators and Rep- 
resentatives are admitted into the councils of 
the Union the authority under which they are 
appointed is not only recognized, but the repub- 
lican character of their State governments is 
at once and forever acknowledged? 

Acting on this theory, at the first session of 
the Thirty-Eighth Congress a joint resolution 
was passed declaring that no State declared to 
be in rebellion by the proclamation of the Pres- 
ident shall be entitled to appoint electors for 
President and Vice President until both Houses 
of Congress by concurrent action shall have 
recognized a State government in such State. 

This theory of reconstruction is not there- 
fore a new one, made by this Congress to keep 
the rebellious States from participating in legis- 
lation, but has been solemnly decided by the 
Supreme Court of the United State as a power 
vested exclusively in Congress, and one that no 
coordinate branch of this Government has the 
right to interfere with. 

And, sir, the world will be surprised to know 
that both Mr. Seward and the President held 
to this doctrine;, and so instructed some of the 
proTisiorial governors of the so-called recon- 
structed States. 

In answer to a letter from Governor Marvin, 



provisional govei-nor of Florida, Mr. Seward, 
on the 12th of September, 1865, thus speaks : 

Department op State. 
Wasuington, September 12, 1865. 
Sir: Your Excellency's letter of the 29th ultimo, 
with the accompanying proclamation, has been re- 
ceived and submitted to the President. The steps to 
which it refers toward reorganizing the government 
of Floridascem to be in the main judicious, a»id good 
results from them may be hoped for. The presump- 
tion to which the proclamation refers, however, in 
favor of insurgents who may wish to vote and who 
may have applied for but not received their pardons, 
is not exactly approved. All applications for par- 
don will bo duly considered and will be disposed of 
as soon as may be practicable. It must, however, be 
distinctly understood that the restoration to which 
your proclamation refers will be subject to the decis- 
ion of Congress. 

I have the honor t* be your Excellency's obedient 
servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
His Excellency William Marvin, Provisional Gov- 
ernor of the State of Florida, Tallahassee. 

What did the Secretary mean, when he said 
that the restoration to which the Governor's 
proclamation referred " will be subject to the 
decision of Congress," if it was not that to 
Congress attached the duty, the power, and the 
responsibility of deciding how and when that 
restoration was complete, final, and satisfac- 
tory? 

Again, in a dispatch dated July 24, 1865, 
Mr. Seward, by order of the President, sends 
the following telegram to Governor Sharkey, 
of Mississippi: 

Washington, July 24, 1865. 
W. L. Sharkey, ProutsionaZ Governor of Mississippi : 

Your telegram of the 21st has been received. The 
President sees no reason to interfere with General 
Slocum's proceedings. The government of the State 
will be provisional only until the civil authorities 
shall be restored with the approval of Congress. 
Meanwhile military authority cannot be withdrawn. 
WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Has Congress said any more ? Could Con- 
gress say any more ? Which of the civil au- 
thorities of any of these States has been restored 
with the approval of Congress ? And yet Mr. 
Seward undertakes to unite with those who 
denounce the action of Congress as revolu- 
tionary because Congress assumes to do what 
he says cannot be done except with the ap- 
proval of Congress. If Congress has not the 
constitutional power to inquire into and deter- 
mine the fact whether the governments of these 
States lately in rebellion have been properly 
reorganized, I want to know who has that power ? 
Has the President? If he has, where does he 
find his power? It is clearly not in the Con- 
stitution, and it is equally as clear that it is not 



9 



to be found either in the laws of Congress or 
in any military power that he possesses as Com- 
mander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy. Has 
the Supreme Court the pcfwer to determine this 
question? It certainly cannot have, since all 
of its powers are well defined, and, as I have 
before stated, that tribunal has decided that 
Congress has the power. 

We are driven, then, to one of two conclu- 
sions : that there is no power anywhere, in any 
of the coordinate branches of this Government 
to judge of or determine upon the reconstruction 
of these States, or that power belongs to and 
resides in the Congress of the United States. 
By assuming the first, the States that went 
in,to rebellion would have the right to build up 
any kind of a government as a State organiza- 
tion, and provided it owed allegiance to the 
Constitution of the United States it would be 
entitled to be recognized as such and to have 
its representation in this House. More than 
this, the States that went into rebellion not 
only did not need any provisional or military 
governments to aid them in building up new 
governments after the fall of the confederacy, 
but by simply surrendering, after they were 
compelled to surrender, and yielding obedience 
to the laws of the United States, after they 
were forced to do so, they had the right eo 
instanti to resume their former position in the 
Union, and to have all the original rights ex- 
ercised by them before they went into rebeL 
lion, 

I, for one, cannot agree to any such a doc- 
trine, but hold to the only safe rule for the 
reconstruction of these States, that the power 
is in Congress to determine when these States 
shall be entitled to exercise all their proper 
functions in the Union, and how and on what 
terms it shall be done. Ay, sir, and that 
until these terms are complied with they shall 
remain where they have remained for the 
last four years, in the Union to be sure, be- 
cause they had not the power to get out of it ; 
but in the Union, divested of their represen- 
tation in Congress until the Union masses of 
this land have so hedged them in by proper 
guarantees and safeguards for future protec- 
tdon as that they can be safely invested -with 
all the powers- of loyal States. 



The question then occurs, have the State 
governments of any of the rebellious States 
been reconstructed in such a manner as to 
entitle them to be not only represented in Con- 
gress, but to receive-all the powers and priv- 
ileges of loyal States? 

In answering this question we should con- 
sider, first, the status of the people of these 
States as to their loyalty to the Government ; 
and second, the nature or kind of State gov- 
ernments they have organized, and which we 
are called upon to recognize. 

I take it that no true, devoted friend of his 
country could wish that any of these States 
should again aid in controlling the destinies of 
this nation until the people of the States have 
shown themselves to be loyal to the Govern- 
ment which they are in part to control. When 
I use the word loyal in this connection, I do 
not mean that sturdy, bold, and defiant patriot 
who, through four years of blood and slaughter, 
maintained that no State had the right to rebel, 
and who refused to give a voluntary support to 
the rebel usurpation ; but I take it in its new 
and amended sense, as a man who did go into 
rebellion, but who, having taken the amnesty 
oath, means in good faith to keep it. 

In this latter sense I am constrained to sav 
that I do not believe that the vast majority of 
those who have taken the oath arc loyal, be- 
cause I do not believe, in the language of our 
patriotic President, that you "trust" them. 

That my opinion is not formed from any 
prejudice, but that it is a conviction based on 
swbrn and legal testimony, I beg leave to refer 
to the testimony of Hon. John Covode. In one 
part of it, in answer to a question put to him 
by the committee, ho says: 

"I conversed with loyal men from other State*— 
Mississipiii. Alal)ama, <i:c.— who were then iu New- 
Orleans. They expressed a deep interest in having a 
correct policy inaugurated in Louisiana on account 
of thc_ effect it would haveon theirown States. They 
said that if Louisiana was directed iu the right course 
at the start, froiu her position and relations to other 
States, it would go far to produce the best results in 
several other States. I will here state that many truly 
loyal men whom I met in New Orleans seemed to Itek 
confidence in their being ultimately protected and 
supported by the Government; and I was frequently 
asked, if I became satb^fied or convinced that they 
were to be abandoned to the rule of the rebel ele- 
ment, to notify them in time to enable them to jret 
away, more especially if the troops of the United 
States were to bo withdrawn. They said that if th« 
troops were withdrawn they could not live there. T 
know many citizens of Louisiana who remained 



10 



within reach of the military because they did not 
dare to venture to return to their former homes." 

In another part of his testimony the follow- 
ing significant facts are developed : 

"Question. Have you a copy of your report to the 
President? 

"Answer. I have not a copy of that report. I have 
at home the rough draft from which the report was 
made, but not the accompanying papers, as I had no 
copies made of them. Notbeing aware that I should 
bo called before this committee to testify I did not 
bring that rough draft with me to the city. 

"Question. Can you state from recollection the sub- 
stance of the conclusions in your report to the Presi- 
dent which you state you made to him ? 

"Answer. I might be able to state the substance of 
the conclusions. One of them I recollect distinctly 
was to this effect: 'That if the rebel element was 
allowed to vote in the South every member who would 
be returned to Congress would be hostile to the policy 
of the Federal Government, not only as regards pay- 
ment of the national debt, but in reference to the 
emancipation of the negroes; that while they ex- 
pressed a willingness to accede to the principles of 
the emancipation proclamation, they always coupled 
with it a determination to regulate their own affairs in 
that respect, stating that they would have an organ- 
ized system of negro labor which they would control 
for themselves. Over and over again, in conversa- 
tion in New Orleans. I heard them saying that they 
could make the condition of affairs better for them- 
selves than it was before. They said that Govern- 
ment had freed the negroes and should be made to 
take care of cripples and those who were not able to 
work, while they would regulate and control the labor 
of able-bodied men. 

"'I would here state that while many in the South 
would say that Government must pay the rebel debt 
as well as Federal debt, the better and more intelli- 
gent class of them did not speak inthis way ; but they 
told me distinctly that I could not expect that they 
would help to pay our debt or pension our soldier.s 
for whipping them; that they would have power in 
the Government some day, with their increased rep- 
resentation, and would be able to defeat the payment 
of the interest on the debt or in some other way 
destroy public credit. I asked them where they ex- 
pected to get help for that purpose, and they would 
generally say that there were portions of the North 
where they had no interest in Government securities 
— the West, for instance. I found that to be the feel- 
ing among the best men who had been in the rebel- 
lion that I met at the South. They seemed to take 
it for granted that we could not expect them, when 
they should again attain power, lo help pay our 
debts.'" 

Now, this is the testimony of one of the men 
sent by the President to ascertain the amount 
and kind of loyalty there is in the South. 

Carl Schurz, also sent by the President to 
ascertain the feeling of the South, gives the 
following as his estimate of loyalty: 

"I may sum up all I have said in a few words. If 
nothing were necessary but to restore the machinery 
of government in the States lately in rebellion in 
point of form, the movements made to that end by 
the people of the South might be considered satisfac- 
tory. But if it is required that the southern people 
should also accommodate themselves to the results 
of the war in point of spirit, those movements fall far 
short of what must be insisted upon. 

" The loyalty of the masses and most of the leaders 
of the southern people consists in submission to ne- 
cessity. There is, except in individual instances, an 
entire absence of that national spirit which forms the 
basis of true loyalty and patriotism." 



He also recommends the President to — 

"Advise Congress to send one or more 'investigat- 
ing committees' into the southern States to inquire 
for themselves into the actual condition of things 
before final action is taken upon the readmission of 
such States to their representation in the legislative 
branch of the Government and the withdrawal of the 
national control from that section of the country." 

Generals Terry and Turner and Colonel 

Brown — 

"Concur in representing the sentiments of the peo- 
ple of Virginiain relation to the Government as unim- 
proved, and as rather having become embittered 
since Lee's surrender. They say that at that time 
the people were humble, sick of war, longing tor peace 
on any terms, and ready to accept gratefully the par- 
don of the Government, and to submit to any condi- 
tions that might be imposed, while now they aro 
arrogant, exacting, and intolerant. Most witnesses 
of that class express a decided opinion that the with- 
drawal of the Federal troops and of the Freedmen'3 
Bureau would be followed by an unrelenting pro- 
scription of white Unionists and persecution and 
remission to slavery of the colored people. The 
change of feeling is very generally ascribed by these 
witnesses to the President's liberal policy. In regard 
to tho'Federal.debt, the people of Virginia are rep- 
resented as in favor of its repudiation, or at least of 
combiningwithitthe confederatedebt. The witnesses 
who have been connected with the confederacy, how- 
ever, deny this, and represent the people as willing 
to pay their share of the Federal debt by taxation. 
On this subject General Lee's opinion is that they 
are willing to pay both, and opposed to a repudiation 
of either." 

General Swayne thus testifies before the 

committee on reconstruction of the amount 

and kind of loyalty in Alabama. He says : 

"After the surrender of Lee a kindly feeling was 
generally expressed toward the United States, since 
which a great increase of bitterness has taken place, 
displaying itself in a sort of social ostracism toward 
Union men, northern emigrants, and Army officers. 
There is a general desire on the part of the people to 
see the bureau removed. The Governor would like 
to see it removed, but while it remains extends to it 
Ardial cooperation. The city of Mobile appears to 
be largely under the dominion of rowdyism, and actu- 
ated throughout by a feeling of hostility to the freed- 
men. During the past six months four colored 
churches have been burned in consequence of an 
attempt to establish colored schools in tliem." 

Dr. James P. Hambleton, an ex-rebel sur- 
geon, thus testifies as to the feeling in Georgia: 

" The people there expect payment for their slaves 
and for the destruction of property by the war when 
the passions of the hour shall have subsided. They 
expect that at some future day there will be a sort 
of compromise by which the southern States will be 
relieved of their share of the rebel debt as a compen- 
sation for their losses. The people hold the same 
opinions as to State sovereignty as before the war, 
but having accepted the situation cannot, as honor- 
able men, again resort to secession." 

Talk about the loyalty of the South ! Loy- 
alty to whom and to what? Loyalty to the 
Government and people of the United States 
who have made them submit by force to the 
Constitution and laws they fought so long and 
desperately to destroy? Is it natural that the 



11 



hearts of these people could so soon be changed 
from one of intense, bitter, deadly hate to that 
of devotion and attacliment to the Govern- 
ment? And if their loyalty is not one of de- 
votion and attachment, what kind of loyalty is 
it? Do you propose to have two kinds of loy- 
alty, one for the North and the other for the 
South ? If you do, what is to be the nature of 
the one and the character of the other ? If 
northern loyalty is shown by the thousands of 
lives that have been lost and the millions of 
money that has been spent to preserve the na- 
tion, is southern loyalty to be proven by an 
utter contempt for the brave heroes who put 
down the rebellion, by a shameful recital of 
their high-handed outrages in desolating loyal 
States, or by making demigods of their trai- 
torous leaders, to whom even now they pro- 
pose to erect monuments as enduring evidence 
of'their new-born love to the Government? Is 
this the kind of loyalty you want? Is this the 
kind of men you trust with the destinies of this 
nation ? If it is, then, in my judgment, you 
need no joint committee to hunt it up. You 
will find it broadcast from Virginia to Texas. 
If it is not, then you must wait, and wait pa- 
tiently, until the people in that region learn- 
what you mean by loyalty, and set earnestly to 
work to obtain it. 

Mr. Speaker, I am not an alarmist, but I 
cannot close my eyes to what is going on around 
me, nor fail to note the "signs of the times." 
We have barely emerged from one of the great- 
est and most bloody conflicts known to the 
annals of history. Millions of treasure has 
been .spent, hundredsof thousands of lives have 
been sacrificed, and whole States have been 
desolated by the ravages of war to put down 
treason and to maintain and uphold the Con- 
stitution and the Union. Sir, if I mistake not, 
we are on the eve of a revolution that portends 
as momentous consequences to the untold mil- 
lions of the future as the conflict through which 
we have passed brought upon us. 

I cannot close ray eyes to the fact that tlie 
very men who brought on this war of rebellion, 
and who strove through blood and persecution 
to overthrow tliis Republic, are striving to-day 
to get back into the places they ignominiously 
deserted, and are endeavoring once more to 
control the Government they impiously tried 



to subvert. I cannot overlook the fact that in 
none of the States where treason was the most 
violent and vindictive, and where traitors were 
the most wicked and defiant, has there been a 
single State government established, but that 
men whose records were the blackest for treason 
to the country have been elevated to the high- 
est oflSces by the people; while on the other 
hand, men who were true to the country, and 
who suflTered persecutions and confiscation, and 
were at all times the stanch aiid unwavering 
supporters of the Union, are set aside and 
laughed at and mocked for their loyalty. I 
have yet to see wherein treason has been looked 
upon as a crime, or to find where any traitor 
has been made odious. On the contrary, the 
tens of thousands of men who with devilish 
hate .sought the life of the nation are as com- 
placent at the sad wreck they have made, and 
as jubilant at the easy penalties they have 
incurred, as though they had been doing God's 
work, and were receiving a crown of glory for 
their valor and devotion to the cause of treason. 

After the surrender of Lee to Grant these 
men were ready to agree to any terms. They 
thought that treason was a crime, and that' 
there was a law in existence to punish it as 
such. They would have been willing at that 
time to concede any condition for future good 
behavior and security in order to save their 
lives and their property. But when the Presi- 
dent, from the goodness of his heart it may be, 
but certainly with mistaken clemency, gave 
them a pardon for past offenses, and they found 
themselves far Ijeyond the reach of the law, 
they began to think that treason was not so 
great an off'ense after all, that it was only a po- 
litical mistake, and not a crime. And to-day, 
instead of being humble and penitent, we find 
them open, bold, and defiant. They talk now 
of their rights in the Union, just as they used 
to prate of their ' ' divine institution," and insist 
that we have no power to impose any terms 
upon them, and that all who do insist on terms 
are traitors and disunlonists. I am inclined to 
think, sir, that if we were traitors we would 
have a better chance of easy times for the future 
than by standing forth as the advocates of our 
country's right, to be branded by such as they 
as revolutionists. 

The President, in my judgment, made a 



12 



great, a sad, and I fear a fatal mistake in the 
indiscriminate manner with which he granted 
pardon. 

I am satisfied he did it for the best, think- 
ing that after these n;ien said they had lost all, 
and that the Government, in its great clemency 
forgave them all, they would become penitent 
and be moved by the tender cords of love to 
the side of the country. But, sir, the Presi- 
dent has been mistaken. He has been made 
the victim of misplaced confidence, and in- 
stead of their becoming, penitent, they are as 
defiant to-day as they were when Jeff. Davis 
ruled at Richmond as the great high-priest 
of the confederacy. Treason is still as deep 
and as damning in their bosorns as the day 
the great southern heart was inflamed by the 
attack on Sumter. They will strive to make 
the President think otherwise, to induce him 
to stand by them, and after he has stood by 
them and they have once more got back the 
power they lost, they will turn on him to sting 
him as surely as the viper turned to sting the 
farmer after he had warmed life into it. 

It was but the other day that Alexander II. 

.Stephens, the vice president of the exploded 

confederacy, gave his testimony before the 

committee on reconstruction, and what does 

he say : 

"But the people of that State, (Georgi*,) asl have 
said, would not willingly, I think, do more than they 
have done for restoration. The only view in their opin- 
ion that could possiblyjustify the war which wascar- 
ried on by the Federal Government against them was 
the ukMoftheindissolubleness of the Union; that those 
who held the administration for the time werebound 
to enforce the execution of the laws and the mainten- 
ance of the integrity of the country under the Con- 
stitution ; and since that war was accomplished, since 
lihose who had assumed the contrary principle — the 
right of secession and the reserved sovereignty of the 
States — had abandoned their cause, and the Adminis- 
tration here was sucoessfulin maintaining the idea 
upon which war was proclaimed and waged, and the 
only view in which they supposed it could be justi- 
fied at all; when that was accomplished, I say, the 
people of Georgia supposed their State was immedi- 
ately entitled to all her rights under tlie Constitu- 
tion. That is my opinion of the sentiment of the 
people of Georgia, and I do not think they would be 
willing to do anything further as a condition-prece- 
dent to their being permitted to enjoy the full meas- 
ure of their constitutional rights. I only give my 
opinion of the sentiment of the people at this time. 
They expected that as soon as the confederate cause 
was abandoned that immediately the States would be 
brought back into their practical relations with the 
Government as previously constituted. 

" That is what they looked to. They expected that 
the State would immediately have their representa- 
tives in the Senate and in the House, and they ex- 
pected in good lath, as loyal men, as the term is fre- 
quently used — I mean by it loyal to law, order, and 
the Constitution— to support the Government under 
the Censtittition. That was their fe«ling. They did 



what they did believing it was best for the protec- 
tion of constitutional liberty. Toward tho Constitu- 
tion of the United States, as they construed it, tho 
great mass of our people were as much devoted in 
their feelings as any people ever were toward any 
cause. This is my opinion. As I remarked before, 
they resorted to secession with aview of maintaining 
more securely these principles. And when they found 
they were not successful in their object, in perfect 
good faith, as far as I can judge from meeting with 
them and conversing with them, looking to the fu- 
ture developments of their country in its material 
resources, as well as its moral and intellectual prog- 
ress, their earnest desire and expectation "was to 
allow the past struggle, lamentable as it was in its 
results, to pass by, and to cooperate with the true 
friends of the Constitution, with those of all sections 
who earnestly desire the preservation of constitu- 
tional liberty and the perpetuation of the Govern- 
ment in its purity. They have been a little disap-^- 
pointed in this, and arc so now. They are patiently 
waiting, however, and believing that when tho pas- 
sions of the hour have passed away this delay in res- 
toration will cease. They think they have done every- 
thingthatwas essential and proper, and my judgment 
is, that they would not bo willing to do anything fur-* 
ther as a condition-precedent. They would sinaply 
remain quiet and passive." 

What will the loyal men of this country say 
to such reasoning as this? After carrying on 
a war of four years to break up the Govern- . 
ment, and after having been conquered and 
compelled to yield to a superior force, we are 
coolly told by these reconstructed patriots that 
they expected their representatives to be ad- 
mitted "as loyal men," and that when they 
went into rebellion the people thought it was 
best for constitutional liberty, and that they will 
not agree to any conditions that the American 
people impose upon them, and says with the 
most supreme impudence that the South ought 
to refuse all conditions, and in case conditions 
are demanded and refused, he says: 

"Should such an offer be made and declined, and 
these States should thus continue to be excluded and 
kept out, a singular spectacle would be presented. 
A complete reversal of positions would be presented. 
In 18G1 thef^e States thought they could not remain 
safely in the Union without new guarantees, and 
now, when they agree to resume their former practi- 
cal relations in the Union under tlie Constitutisn aa 
it is, the other States turn upon them and say they 
cannot permit them to do so, safely to their interest, 
without new guarantees on their part. The southern 
States would thus present themselves as willing for 
immediate union under the Constitution, while it 
would be the northern States opposed to it. The for- 
mer disunionists would thereby become Unionists, 
and the former Unionists the practical disunionists." 

Surely, Mr. Stephens has been taking lessens 

from the President, or the President has been 

learning from him. He says further on this 

subject: 

"I think, as the Congress of the United States did 
not consent to the withdrawal of the seceding States-, 
it was a continuous right under the Constitution 
of the United States, to be exercised so soon as 
the seceding States respectively made known their 
readiness to resume their former practical relar 
ti»ns with the Federal Government, under tho CoQ>- 



13 



titution of tho United States. As tho General Gov- ; 
Gnniiciit denied the right of .seocs.sion, I do not 
think any of the States attempting to exercise it | 
tiiL-rcby lo.t any of their rights undef tiic Constitu- 
tion as States when their iieoplc abandoned that 
attempt." 

Is it any wonder that these red-handed 
traitors are such friends of the "President's 
policy," when they see and know that "his 
policy," and his alone, is to give back to them 
all their rights as fully and place them in 
possession of the Government as completely 
as before they went into rebellion? And if 
this "policy" be carried out, what penalty is 
there, or can there be, for treason? And what 
inducements -will be held out for loyalty? 'On 
the contrary, will not a premium be offered 
for disloyalty, and treason made respectable ? 

The President's policy, in my judgment, has 
done more to make treason respected and trai- 
tors heroes than the establishment and inde- 
pendence of the confederacy could have done; 
because, if the President's policy is fully car- 
ried out, it not only places the eleven seceding 
or rebellious States in the hands of the rebels, 
but by giving them once more a voice in the 
Government, the time will not be long before 
these same rebels will have the complete con- 
trol of the Government in all its departments. 
No wonder, then, every rebel, from Davis to 
the merest subaltern in the confederate army, 
including bushwhackers, jayhawkers, and guer- 
rillas, copperheads, and whilom peace men, 
are the earnest and devoted admirers of the 
' ' President' s policy. " It is just the ' ' policy' ' 
for them, because they plainly see that it is the 
only one that they can live by and one which, 
through their newspaper press, they profess to 
die by. The President may continue to be 
deluded ; but I warn the American people 
to-day not to look with indifference at what is 
going on about them, not to imagine, because 
we have put down the war of rebellion, there 
is still no danger to the Republic. I say there 
is danger ; and unless the people of the North, 
tlie East, and the West arise once more in their 
might and proclaim to the South, you shall not 
be again invested with all the rights of loyal 
States until fundamental guarantees are given 
for future peace and security, you will see this 
Government, in less than ten years, in the 
hands of the very men who for the past four 
years have been trying to destroy it. 



But it is said the President has the advantage 
of Congress, because he has "a policy," and 
Congress has none. It is a good thing for this • 
country and the world that Congress has no 
"policy." The day of "policy" has, I trust, 
passed away, never to return. It was "policy" 
that brought on this rebellion, and that was 
near making the rebellion a success. 

So long tvs Congress and the Executive actecj 
on* "policy" in the prosecution of the war,* 
defeat after defeat was the result. But so soon 
as " policy" was thrown aside, and principles, 
eternal and unchangeable, were pursued in- 
stead, victory after victory perched upon the 
banners of the Republic, until at last principle 
was made triumphant over policy in the total 
and utter overthrow of treason. 

It was " policy" that induced the framers of 
the Constitution to recognize the existence of 
slavery. It was "policy" that made the Mis- 
souri compromise of 1820, and that led to its 
repeal. It was " policy" that made the fugi- 
tive slave law of 1850, and it is " policy'' that 
would to-day yield to the spirit of slavery, and 
give back to it more than it possessed w^en 
four million human beings were held in bondage. 
No, sir; I want no policy ; I have done with 
it. I want principles — principles that will live 
when you and I are dead, and that our children 
can live by and bless us for when they come in 
possession of the trust repbsed in us. 

This war has already decided one principle. 
It has decided that hereafter, in this land of 
liberty, there shall be no such thing as a slave, 
and the American people have made this prin- 
ciple a part of the organiclaw of the land. ■ Mr.' 
Alexander Stephens, however, does not think 
that the American people had the right or the 
power to make this a part of the Constitution, 
although he says it was one of the results of 
the war. 

Hear the logic of this ex-vice president of 
the confederacy : 

"Question. Do you mean to be understood in your 
last answer that there is no constitutional power in 
the Government, as at present organized, to exact 
conditions-precedent to tho restoration of political 
power to the eleven States that have been in rebel- 
lion? 
"Antwrr. Yes, sir; that is my opinion. 
" Queatinn. Do you entertain the same opinion in 
reference to the amendments to the Constitution abol- 
ishing slavery? 

" Anstver. I do. I think the States, however, abol- 
ished slavery in cood faith as oncof the results of the 
war. Their ratification of the constitutional amend- 



14 






ment folio wnd as a consequence. I do not think there 
is any con.'titutional power onthepartof the Govern- 
ment to have exacted it as a condition-precedent to 
their restoration under the Constitution, or to the 
resumption of their places as members of the Union." 

Congress has decided another principle which 

it had the power to do under the constitutional 

amendment abolishing slavery, and that is that 

all freemen should have the common rights of 

humanity — to sue, testify, and hold property ; 

thus, for the first time in the history of tjiis 

Government, making good the averment in the 

Declaration of Independence that — 

" All inen are endowed by their Creator with cer- 
tain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, 
and the pursuit of happiness." 

I propose that now, since slavery is no longer 
in existence, that the clause in the Constitution 
of the United States put there by "policy" in 
the interests of slavery shall be stricken out, 
and that hereafter the southern States, instead 
of having a representation here based on the 
negro population, shall be represented accord- 
ing to their white population alone or accord- 
ing to their voting population. 

I have heretofore given my reasons for this 
and»do not propose to repeat them, but until a 
constitutional amendment of this kind is passed 
by Congress and ratified by the States I cannot 
vote to admit them to representation. 

Desiring that "treason should be made odi- 
ous," and knowing that it would be unsafe to 
again trust political power to such as engaged 
in rebellion against the Government ; feeling 
that I cannot safely trust such men in making 
laws for me, I wanta constitutional amendment 
proclaiming in effect that no person who has 
■entered or shall hereafter enter into rebellion 
against the United States shall ever be eligi- 
ble for President, Vice President, or member 
of the Cabinet, or as a Senator or Represent- 
ative in Congress. 

I know you have a law on your statute-book, 
commonly called the " test oath," that excludes 
such persons from being Senators or Repre- 
sentatives; but once allow the southern States 
to participate in legislation, and in conjunc- 
tion with the men who serenaded the Presi- 
dent on the 22d of February last, and who pre- 
sented him with a set of resolutions in which 
this test oath is denounced, you will find that it 
is but a "rope of sand," and that it will be 
repealed as unconstitutional. I prefer, there- 



fore, to make this a part of the organic law, so 
as to place it beyond the reach of any "policy" 
that may hereafter desire to repeal it. 

I know it will be hard for the southern 
people, who have engaged in this rebellion, 
to be taxed to pay off any public debt con- 
tracted in subduing them, and that it will be 
desirable, and even a point of honor with 
them, to tax her people to pay off the debt 
incurred by the rebel States in waging war 
against the United States. 

In order, therefore, to protect the hundreds 
of thousands of men and women who loaned 
their hard earnings to the Government to carry 
on the war, and who received bonds in return, 
on the express condition that they should be 
promptly and faithfully met, as well as to pro- 
tect thousands of poor Union men in the South 
who do not want to be taxed to pay off the 
rebel debt, I desire a constitutional amend- 
ment that neither Congress nor any State shall 
pass any law whereby any part or portion of 
the debt contracted in putting down rebellion 
shall ever be repudiated, or whereby any part 
or portion of the debt, State or confederate, 
contracted in aid of the rebellion, shall ever be 
paid or assumed. 

I am aware that all the lately rebellious States 
have either passed laws or have inserted clauses 
in their constitutions, looking to the same result, 
but I am at the same time impressed with the 
conviction that "policy" might lead these men 
hereafter to repeal their laws or alter their con- 
stitutions, and I prefer that the American peo- 
ple should place a prohibition in the Constitu- 
tion that would be so high that ambition would 
never soar to reach it or cupidity dare to touch 
it. Besides, since they were so willing to put 
this clause in their State constitution, they 
could not object to aid us in placing it in the 
Constitution of the United States. 

As our soldiers and sailors should be our 
peculiarcare — especially since the Presidenthas 
said that he intends to rely upon them ex- 
pressly — I think we owe it to the sacrifices they 
have made and the sufferings they have en- 
dured, that there should be a constitutional 
provision denying to Congress the right to 
hereafter pass any law by which any pension, 
bounty, or gratuity shall be given to any per- 
son who served in the confederate army, or 



15 



■who went iuto rebellion against the Govern- 
ment. I know there is no fear of this or the 
next Congress passing any such law ; but if 
reconstructed traitors ever get into power, and 
tlio Valhindigham Democracy should be within 
reach to aid them, I am disposed to think that 
tlu>y would refuse to give any pension, bounty, 
or ]iay to our soldiers and sailors, unless you 
would agree to give the same to theirs. Why 
not? They think, in the language of the rebel 
ex- vice president, that when they took up arms 
to tear down the Government they were aid- 
ing "to rescue, preserve, and perpetuate the 
principlcR of the Constitution ;" and inasmuch 
ns that is just what our soldiers and sailors 
thought they had periled so much to save, they 
(the rebel soldiers) will claim as much of the 
honor and gratitude as our own. 

These, Mr. Speaker, are the principles I would 
advocate, to be made a part and portion of our 
organic law. With them I think the country 
will be safe; without them you might as well 
prepare yourself at once to see this Govern- 
ment in the hands of the men who have been 
seeking to destroy it. 

Congress owes it to the country to pass 
upon the propositions that I have named — and 
which I do not pretend to claim to be my own — 
and to submit them to the States for ratifica- 
tion. Instead of being several, they can be 
embraced in one proposition. So soon as they 
are ratified by any or all of the eleven States, 
I would admit such of them to representation 
as adopt them. Such as do not adopt them 
I would exclude from representation until 
three fourths of the States have ratified them, 
ao as to make them binding upon all. 

In this way, and in this alone, in my judg- 
ment, can the honor, the safety, or the perpe- 
tuity of the Republic be established. 

I know there are some who do not appre- 
hend any evil consequences from allowing these 
States to be represented now without any con- 
ditions and without any changes in our funda- 
hiental law. 1 wish I could think with them, 
and could place that confidence in the honor 
and loyalty of the men who went into rebellion 
a^ would warrant me in trusting them without 



any guarantees. But, sir, I cannot believe 
that men who conspired so long and secretly 
to bring on the rebellion, who fought so des- 
perately and wickedly to make it a success, 
who starved and tortured so many thousands 
of our brave and heroic defenders in prison- 
pens and in dungeons, wlio have taken so many 
oaths, and have violated them, and become 
perjurers before God and man, and who since 
they have been vanquislied and compelled to 
cease their strife, are as open and defiant as 
they should be modest and humble — I cannot 
believe, I say, sir, that such men are safe to be 
trusted with the destinies of a great nation and 
of an injured and magnanimous people. 

I may be mistaken. It is possible, barely 
possible, that they are sincere, and that they do 
not contemplate in the future to act in any 
other way than for 'the glory and honor and 
success of this mighty nation. If I have made 
a mistake in not believing them to be thoroughly 
loyal, it is one made on the side of my country 
and in behalf of her safety. The loyalty of 
men who have been engaged for over four years 
in breaking up the Government is at least 
doubtful. In doubtful cases it is better to give 
•the benefit of the doubt to the side of the per- 
manency of your country than against it. If 
these men are at once taken in full fellowship 
and granted equal rights and powers without 
any guarantees, and it should afterward turn 
out that they were not true and sincere in their 
loyalty, the consequences wiU,be terrible, and 
nothing but the interposition of the all-power- 
ful arm of God could stay the anarchy that 
would be its legitimate results. 

Let us allj then, unite in Insisting on snch 
guarantees as will secure a peace that is lasting 
and that will make the Constitution and the 
Union as impregnable from treason within as 
it is invincible from foes beyond its borders; 
and whether our course be indorsed to-day or 
not we shall have the consciousness of acting 
honestly and with a sole view of perpetuating 
our institutions, and unnumbered millions yet 
unborn will justify our action and honor us for 
standing firmly and unflinchingly by the ark of 
our safety. 



